Wicked 3 Seems Inevitable After Universal's Latest Update — But Is It A Good Idea?

No. There shouldn't be any more "Wicked" movies. There's your answer.

Sorry; I'll back up. In case you've been living under a rock, Jon M. Chu's second half of his "Wicked" adaptation, subtitled "For Good," made a whole bunch of money at the box office upon officially hitting theaters on November 21, 2025. Using Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman's Broadway musical as his source material, Chu — who brought Schwartz and Holzman on board for "For Good" to write two new songs and help pen the screenplay with Dana Fox, respectively — brought the fantastical world of Oz back to the big screen to share the story of Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo), the verdant young witch who ultimately becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. Now that "Wicked: Part One" and "Wicked: For Good" are confirmed box office juggernauts (and the first one snagged 10 Oscar nominations, winning two for makeup and costume design), Universal Pictures reportedly wants to build out the universe first created by Frank L. Baum in his Oz novels.

This is such an infuriating outcome, and it's a terrible idea.

Universal's chief marketing officer, Michael Moses, was pretty blunt while speaking to Vulture about the franchise's future. "Because of 'Wicked's' success but also the fanship, we have almost a responsibility to figure out how we can continue in this universe," he said. "Have we figured it out yet? No. But there are things underway." This is the worst possible way Moses and the Universal team could build out the "Wicked" cinematic universe. Why? Well, Moses gave the game away: it's about the movie's financial success, and also, there's no actual plan in place. This will result in more "Wicked" media, sure ... but it probably won't be very good.

There's "something bad" about this idea to either continue the story of "Wicked" or set other stories in this universe, as even Stephen Schwartz seems hesitant to participate. "If there were a right idea, but I'm just not sure that that right idea exists," Schwartz told Rob LeDonne for The Ankler at the premiere of "Wicked: For Good." Unfortunately, though, Schwartz kept talking:

"What I will tell you, without giving away too much, is that Winnie Holzman and I are doing some work right now on ideas that aren't a sequel to 'Wicked,' because I think the Glinda and Elphaba story feels complete — but there are other aspects that could be explored. Gregory Maguire, the original 'Wicked' novelist, has several books, for example. But there's another idea that Winnie and I are discussing: not a sequel, but an adjunct. Let me put it that way."

Schwartz, to his credit, isn't wrong. Gregory Maguire, as he noted, has written a bunch of sequels to his 1995 origin story "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West," including "Son of a Witch" (which centers around Elphaba's son Liir, who's not in Jon M. Chu's movies or the stage musical) and follow-up novels about the experiences of the Cowardly Lion ("A Lion Among Men") and Elphaba's granddaughter Rain ("Out of Oz"). Frank L. Baum also wrote a whole host of books set in "Oz," so I guess Universal could just throw a dart at one of those and adapt whichever one it hits. My fear, though, is that a future "Wicked" project under the Universal umbrella will be original, and I really, really don't think the world needs that. 

Spoilers for "Wicked: For Good" ahead.

I honestly can't imagine anything — and I mean this with the utmost respect to Stephen Schwartz, Winnie Holzman, and Dana Fox — worse than a "Wicked" film franchise that uses the first two movies as a jumping-off point and doesn't dip into any pre-established source material. (Again, I don't think the franchise should continue regardless, but I'm focusing on the worse of two evils here.) The story that Jon M. Chu presents in both "Wicked" films is two things: it's far too long, and it's also blessedly complete. At the end of "Wicked: For Good," after Elphaba fakes her death and leaves her best friend Glinda the Good Witch (Ariana Grande-Butera) behind to save Oz's future, Glinda, who hasn't previously possessed any magical powers, suddenly sees the magic book known as the Grimmerie open for her (as it always did for Elphaba, a decidedly powerful witch). Whether this means that Glinda essentially took on some of Elphaba's powers due to their bond or always had magical powers that were awakened by Elphaba is debatable. What's not debatable — not with me, at least — is that this is the end of the story.

Not only do I want to see Grande-Butera pursue other acting opportunities (she's very good in the "Wicked" movies, even when the films don't rise to her level), but the continuation of the story presented in these movies just ... doesn't exist. If there was a third film that followed the events of the first two, it would end up repeating the same plot beats; there's no Liir or Thropp family line to continue the tale. Let sleeping witches lie, and let "Wicked" conclude, Universal. I'm begging you.